ReviewCureus2026
Evidence-Based Laboratory Testing Algorithms: A Strategic Approach to Improving Diagnostic Accuracy.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comment on "Precision-guided heart failure interventions: The expanding role of advanced cardiac imaging and artificial intelligence".American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing knowledge of evidence-based medicine (EBM) has reinforced the need for structured diagnostic approaches in laboratory testing. A laboratory testing algorithm - a stepwise, guideline-informed sequence of tests - can significantly improve diagnostic accuracy, reduce unnecessary testing, and boost clinical decision-making. These algorithms, combined with current evidence, clinical judgment, and test performance indices, offer clinicians a strategic framework for patient evaluation. In this review, we examine the concept, design, and application of evidence-based laboratory testing algorithms, with an example drawn from common clinical settings, such as the anemia testing algorithm. The presentation of these pathways focuses on calling attention to how diagnostic efficiency can be optimized in daily clinical practice. The integration of these algorithms into electronic health records (EHR), computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems, and clinical decision-support systems (CDSS) is also recommended. Despite the potential of these algorithms, limitations to widespread adoption still exist, which include a lack of standardization, provider familiarity, interpretive huddles, and system-level limitations. However, as healthcare systems continue to evolve and prioritize cost-effectiveness and patient safety, laboratory professionals have a distinctive opportunity to lead the development and implementation of testing algorithms. This review also stresses the value of collaboration between laboratory professionals and clinical teams in shaping diagnostic strategies, and calls for expanded awareness, familiarization, education, and full integration of evidence-based approaches in laboratory medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.